More damn statistics and Women in Canterbury

I know I just wrote a post yesterday critiquing the Government’s choice of statistics, and no-one wants to read continual disputes over statistics but the following statements from Paula Bennett’s media release today are just too provoking:

“I also recall dire predictions that Cantabrians would go onto benefits in huge numbers post-quake, but in fact at most there were 6,324 on the Unemployment Benefit in June 2011,” says Mrs Bennett.

“That’s because firstly the Government spent $214 million on work subsidies to keep employers and workers in business and then continued a focus on helping business growth and getting people off welfare into work.” Paula Bennett 28 Feb 2013

I wonder how the women in Canterbury feel about these statements when they consider the the Human Rights Commission report showing women accounted for 70% of the decrease in employment in Canterbury with the number of women in employment decreasing by 19,200, in the year to September 2011 and of the 4500 jobs that were created in 2011 women only got 8.9% of these.

The consequences of such a gendered impact may well be far reaching and limiting the Government’s response to a PR exercise to try and encourage young women into non-traditional jobs is absolutely inadequate.

I wonder how the women in Canterbury feel about these statements when they consider the the Human Rights Commission report showing women accounted for 70% of the decrease in employment in Canterbury with the number of women in employment decreasing by 19,200, in the year to September 2011 and of the 4500 jobs that were created in 2011 women only got 8.9% of these.

It’s so sinister!! it’s almost like a huge natural disaster happened skewing the statistics!!

The consequences of such a gendered impact may well be far reaching

Yet all social indicators seem to show a strengthening of family (both immediate and extended) as people rise to the challenge of rebuilding their city.

I choose to be deeply proud of Cantabrians and how they dealt with their prolonged catastrophe, never before has ‘over the hill’ felt so close to us on the West Coast.

Perhaps it’s time for the left to finally give up on exploiting the pain of others for their own appalling self promotion.

I would be genuinely interested if someone could tell me if ANY sort of survey has ever been conducted to determine if or how many young women are actually wanting “non traditional” employment? Whether certain individuals or political parties like it or not, the physiological and psychological differences of males and females are very real and for many, “non traditional” roles may genuinely not appeal even if given the information and option.
All hail to women mechanics and male nurses but we don’t all want to go there. What needs to be more esteemed is the “traditional” work that females do.

I wonder how much of this is about choice (inasmuch as bad things happen and people make changes). In a family under stress, a part-time second income earner might prioritise other needs. Just a thought (can’t access the report via link).

Another reason the benefit numbers in Canterbury didn’t rise is because people moved to Nelson/Marlborough/West Coast and down to Dunedin/Southland. There were unusual rises in those regions.